Comments on: Chomsky ally differs sharply with him over Israel lobby

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

The reason that oil is paramount in US strategic thinking, is that the US is DEPENDANT on oil for nearly all aspects of its economy.

Even with necessity as the mother of invention, there is no possibility of a hydrogen centered, or solar-centered energy infrastructure for 75 years.

Its VERY said, and VERY true.

By: Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Good point.

I don't blame Chomsky for showing some vestigial ethnic loyalty, but it's worth pointing out where he goes wrong.

By: Rowan

Rowan — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

In terms of domestic political analysis, chomsky never even sets out, so he can't 'go wrong'. This is the advantage of being an anarchist, you don't have to have a coherent theory of domestic politics.

By: Rowan

Rowan — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I mean, when you look at it, chomsky never analyses the famous 'power of the corporations' or 'the military-industrial complex' in terms of who actually owns it, does he? and nor does hardly anyone else.

By: delia

delia — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I don't understand this debate. In view of large numbers of non-Jews and Christian Zionists involved in the pro-Israel lobby--not just in the US but also in Britain, in Canada, in Australia, and perhaps other places that I don't know as much about--what's wrong with "Chomsky’s contention that the pro-Israeli group is 'far broader' than the American Jewish community." The Canadian pro-Israel lobby, for example, practically runs Montreal and, with the support of countless businesses, corporations, and PM Harper's darling, the oil industry, has significant influence on Canadian national politics.

What am I missing here?

By: Lysander

Lysander — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Here are my thoughts and I hope someone reads them.

I wouldn't be so hard on Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein on this.

Sure, they may downplay the Lobby a bit, but the rest of may be overplaying it.

The Crux of Chomsky's arguments is that the U.S. is an aggressive power bent on world domination. He would point to very destabilizing actions in South America (Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc) In South east Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia) all of which resulted in lots of dead people, and it's really hard to blame AIPAC for all that.

American hostility toward Iran can only partly be blamed on the Lobby. The U.S. had it pretty good with a puppet like the Shaw in power and is mad that he's gone. They're mad about the hostages (still) and they're mad that Iran isn't a puppet like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, etc.

Just like they are mad at Cuba. It's because Castro overthrew their man Batista. Is AIPAC stopping us from befriending Cuba?

So like I've always said; change will come when the balance of power changes in the region. Changes to the point where blind support becomes obviously costly to parties in power here. Such as a nuclear Iran, a strong Hizbullah, and a collapse of the puppet regimes in Egypt, Jordan, etc. Add to that a resurgent Russia and oil back above a hundred and the game changes overnight.

Then you will see a different attitude towards Israel here.

By: chris berel

chris berel — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Except the support for Israel is not blind. And regardless of the situational changes, until the rest of the world treats Israel with the same respect it treats every other country, or at least treats every other country as it does Israel, the US will support Israel 98% of the time.

By: D.

D. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Lysander, I agree with much of what you wrote, but you might give more attention to this part of Alam's statement --

"Why does it matter whether it is oil or the Jewish lobby that determines US policy towards Israel and the Middle East? The answer to this question has important consequences. It will determine who is in charge, and, therefore, who should be targeted by people who oppose Israel’s war mongering and its destruction of Palestinian society."

This confusion about who exactly we're talking about (if anyone) can also be found in statements like your own "the U.S. is an aggressive power bent on world domination," and "The U.S. had it pretty good with a puppet like the Shaw." Who had it pretty good? You, me, big oil, "imperialists"?

It matters if we want to change things, as opposed to sitting back waiting for the world order to evolve. What people resent is that Chomsky never spent a single penny of his considerable political capital in promoting any action against the Zionist state, such as the BDS campaign that he supported against South Africa.